Nice to see O'Bama working on getting rid of midnight Bush rules

[kandrathe]

How sure are you of that they wanted to get rid of you or humiliate you? At 17, I highly doubt you had gotten significant raises to make it so it was worth getting rid of you. Usually if someone is doing quite well, they would rather keep you around instead of getting rid of you, and if doing well enough, promote you into a position of greater responsibility.

That was not the case here. I was told at each pay raise that the expectation was that I would work that much harder, and subsequently over the next few months I was ordered to pretty much clean the hardware area from stock rooms to display shelves. Once there was no more grunt work to do anymore they disposed of me, and I didn't care since I had already procured a better job anyway. I should have quit, but I enjoyed the extra cash and store discount.

But be that as it may, that is getting away from the issue at hand which is if someone comes to you and requires your services or someone with similar services, you are doing a disservice to them if you refuse them service or refuse to refer them to someone that will service them because of your beliefs. If you don't like the services that you can provide, get into another line of work.

Some professions cover a broad array of problem solving, and you may not expect to encounter a particular challenge of your personal ethics until much later in your career. Perhaps a person should have some questions to ask their GP before they select one. In most areas of my life when I choose a service provider, I shop around until I find a person with similar values.

So this is healing? Looks to me that if you read that for what it says, the good doctor is stating what I have stated, that a medical practitioners job is to improve the quality of life of the patient.

It says exactly, to me, what practicing medicine should be focused upon. A person with self esteem issues can have their quality of life improved by either a plastic surgeon or a psychologist. Would we fault the GP for failing to recommend either? Personally, for myself, I take full responsibility for my own quality of life and I wouldn't expect my GP to take on that responsibility. If I'm ill (chronic or acute) then I would expect my GP to help me get cured, manage my pain, and extend my life as is possible or desired.

And here's a second quote that fits with exactly what I said, a medical practitioner's job is to improve someone's quality of life, either by healing or by treating the disease. This doctor even comes right out and says it that quality of life is akin to curing a disease, cause even this doctor probably realizes that not all diseases are curable.

Really? You really think the ultimate purpose of medicine is to assist all beings to experience unbounded love and joy, and to know this is the essence of who we truly are? :blink:

So let me get this straight, you think that a mother's life is less important that the life of her unborn child that could kill her and cost the life of both the mother and the child?

Me? Personally? Let me take off my devil's advocate hat... I personally believe that the process of gestation is a continuum, where at the beginning there is an embryo which has the potential to become a human being, but around 5 months that embryo has been proven in many cases to be viable outside the womb when premature and assisted medically with incubators, respirators and steroids. So, ethically, that embryo becomes a human being sometime between months 2 and 5. Intentionally killing a fetus in months 5 through 9 in my mind would be infanticide. Those later months are where the fetus gets refinement and extra growing time. Not knowing exactly at what point a human being becomes one is an ethical issue that I would trust a doctor to decide, when weighing all the risk factors. I'm glad I'm not the one making the decision, because my uncertainty would tend to make me want to err ethically on the safe side. As a libertarian, I would want to grant full citizenship and constitutional protection to any fetus past 3 months of age. It would very much simplify much of case law involving children and rights. For rape and incest, I would counsel that the psychological harm and damage has been done. Many women who have abortions are haunted by doubt in their decisions (and I've spoken with some). Again, if it were me involved in helping to make the decision, I would want to weigh all the factors involved regarding the age of the fetus, the woman, the circumstances, her mental health and attitudes, and the risks to the potential child and the mother. Personally, I believe that in cases of rape (which are usually reported within hours of the event), the hospital should automatically administer the needed hormones to prevent the pregnancy from occurring in the first place as well as STD testing. Abortion averted. Incest is a trickier case, because by the time a victim is "showing" it might be much too late to avoid infanticide. In my opinion, if anyone should be killed in that case, it should be the abusive male.